Further to my views on the dynamics and practicalities of modern demographic deployment – Are there a set of ‘Rules’ for immigration and or emigration that could satisfy the criteria of both the home nation of the emigree AND the proposed new host nation?

(I am, at least on this occasion ignoring political asylum issues and looking at relocation by choice).

Currently, there probably isn’t – at least not to the satisfaction of all involved.

There are elements of propriety and reasonableness, surely, in the USA/Australian/New Zealand model, where potential immigrants are required to swear allegiance to their adopted country and its society. If you are unable to do so, then are you really suited to becoming a citizen or even resident of that country?

I think probably not.

If you are choosing to emigrate to a country in order to improve your prospects, be it in terms of employment…

I do not consider myself to be a bigot or bigoted in any understanding of the word.

As such I feel no embarrassment at discussing the following because it is what I genuinely believe.

‘The family unit’

The family unit is a self-perpetuating, self – protecting group of individuals with familial ties of Kith and Kin. The unit begins with and probably even relies upon the presence of mam and dad. Thereafter, lets just assume that the child/children arrive as a result of heterosexual relationships between the parents. There we have the family ‘Unit’. The extended family would then include the Mam & Dad’s Mams & Dads and maybe some parental siblings thrown in for good measure. Assuming, (I do that a lot), that there are no deep-seated psychological or societal problems adversely affecting the ‘unit’, then life is rosy in the garden and happiness is felt all around.

‘Modern’ Society however seems unable to recognise this simple and well-established role/status and seems hell-bent on changing the basic ‘rules’ in order to satisfy varying hedonistic positions established by any number of self-interested sectors of society.

Surely it is not normal for a child to have two same-sex parents – in fact I would suggest it is impossible, yet the gay society frequently expound their ‘right’ to similar or same consideration as heterosexual couples during the suitability assessment process for adoption.

This is plainly ridiculous – the child simply cannot get a balanced view of a normal family unit if raised by two homosexuals. The family unit is biologically designed to perpetuate the species, homosexuals are unable to do this. Psychologically the child is raised to believe that a homosexual relationship is the norm – it quite simply is not and should not be promoted as such, particularly by so-called professionals in the public service of child protection – YES I am implying that children should be protected from overt homosexual behaviour until they are old enough and emotionally mature enough to understand the full implications.

Adoption of children should be restricted to heterosexual family groups – period.

Similarly, adoption by single parents should be avoided if at all possible for some of the same reasons as with homosexual parents – it is not representative of a supportive and formative stable family unit.

I know that my preferred family unit appears to be based solely around sexuality – not true! As I’ve already stated, single parent adoptions are also not ideal by a long shot, and even the full heterosexual unit can have its problems. The difference here is that with single sex or even single parent adoptions there is already a set of problems present we are aware of that will potentially cause problems with providing a balanced and representative upbringing for the adoptee.

All proposed adoptions should be thoroughly scrutinised and the heterosexual unit must provide a stable base of relationship into which the child can enter – relationships can always develop problems that are not easy to predict – that’s just human nature.

The same applies to couples who are quite simply too old to offer a child a long and loving stable relationship as the child matures, running the risk that the child will suffer traumatic loss at a too early stage in their development.

I know that this is an overly simplistic view of this issue and there are many, many more views/points of debate to cover. I’ll pick this one up again in the near future.

I cannot begin to imagine the depravity of Ian Watkins of the ‘lost prophets’ fame.

Nor can I under any circumstances understand how a mother, (I use the description loosely here), could be complicit in such inhuman sexual deviancy as to allow a grown man, (again loosely described), to indulge in sexual acts of any nature with a child, but in this case a BABYfor god’s sake. I use the lower case g in god, because surely there can’t be one if this is allowed to happen.

I felt physically ill when I first heard the headlines associated with this case and find it difficult to listen to any more detail.

Surely the monsters involved in these acts serve no useful purpose in society!

In my opinion they deserve to die for their behaviour, Ian Watkins is breathing air that could be used by others – he has no place in society and no positive function to perform that could ever counter-balance the effects of this heinous behaviour we don’t need this pig.

If the only thing preventing his demise, (legally of course), was someone willing to ‘pull the trigger’ – give me a ring, I’m available.